March 22, 2009

The thing I don’t get about this hatred of Althouse is that she is kind of like the South Park of blogging. She’s witty, directing her snark at pretty much anything she finds amusing. Is is that leftists in the blogosphere today are so humorless so self-righteous that they can’t abide the least bit of mockery, criticism or a combination of both?

Or, maybe it’s since they don’t have George W. Bush to kick around any more, they’ve decided to start going after prominent blogresses?

Perhaps it’s something else. Maybe Klein has a case of ADS (Althouse Derangement Syndrome), a syndrome afflicting partisans who can’t understand how a blogress can gain a following without subscribing to any ideology.

What they don't get is that I am a pure blogger, really a blogger, showing you what blogging is. I don't think they really are bloggers. I don't think they really are journalists either. I'm called deranged or whatever when I'm riffing in a bloggerly style that they obviously don't understand or appreciate. They are journalists posing as bloggers, mucking up their journalism and simultaneously writing dull blogs.

The thing I love the most about you is that you are a pure blogger. You blog about things I am not really all that interested in, such as American idol, case law, and café tables. Yet every day, I must check to see what you have posted. It is as if I am in a Positive Althouse Vortex. One that is happiness and sunshine and puppies rather than rage and hair pulling and spit. Maybe it is because I am a libertarian and enjoy choice and chaos and don’t want things properly ordered and in line.

The deranged survive with out all the pomp and circumstance. The ones who haven't quite made it to survival, or maybe they are really the ones who have past it, get to sleep underneath the bridges. they aren't trolls, they have just disovered the light in darker places.

As a liberal and frequent critic, I don't think liberals "hate" Ann Althouse. Liberals criticize Ann Althouse. Some mock her. People do get a bit too mean with some of the wine joking.

But this histrionic and hissy use of the word "hate" to cast criticism as something awful is a big fat red herring.

As far as why I criticize Ann Althouse, I think I've been clear. But here are some reasons:

* She claims to be a moderate or even some days a liberal but she promotes right wing lies, memes and personal attacks.

* She self-identifies as a UW law professor and then criticizes basic concepts of the rule of law like habeas corpus and her embrace of torture. I find that

* She's a knee jerk liberal basher. Look at her where she attacks a young woman for standing in front of Bill Clinton while having breasts.

* Ann claims to have mind-reading powers. She bases no end of her attacks on others on what she just "knows" they meant or intended or their motivation. This is foolish. The beginning of wisdom is to admit what we don't know.

And, from the linked story, this is rich. A common practice by the right for years is suddenly discovered:

This is how the left does it. When you can’t find racist/sexist/anti-Semitic/homophobic comments by a conservative, you impugn their reputation by finding some lunatic in a crowd (or in blog comments) who did make such a comment.

What a dumb statement. Ezra KLlein referred to some commenters at Althouse.

He didn't say, as the Right has done repeatedly, "look at these comments, they reflect Althouse's view and the entire right wing.

The funny thing is Ann is that you are not only a pure blogger but a legitimately successful professional. As a well paid Washington lawyer I would give my left nut to have a tenured professor job at a major state university. You have a more prestiguous and harder to get job than any of the clowns who criticize you. What exactly has Ezra Klein ever done besides bloviat on the internet to people who agree with him? What have any of them ever done?

I have very little respect for journalists. I have even less respect for "opinion journalists". I don't see how someone like Klein who has probably never held a real job in his life's opinion can be of any value.

The comment by "AlphaLiberal" is quite rich. He lists a few areas where he thinks Althouse is wrong, but in his world there is no such thing as seeing things differently or having a legitimate disagreement .... it's all "promoting lies", "criticizing ... rule of law" etc. etc.

"3. She's a woman. The dorky, Beta male net nerds have created a little boy's club online and really wish mommy would leave them alone. Leave, it's our world."

That is very true. A woman like Ann would crush a beta male dork like Klein or Greenwald. It is funny because their hatred of Althouse shows that they really can't handle a strong woman on their own terms.

She's a knee jerk liberal basher. Look at her where she attacks a young woman for standing in front of Bill Clinton while having breasts.

You are sooo confused. That had nothing to do with liberals or liberalism, but rather (at least in my perception) to do with feminism. The hypocrisy and willingness of so called "modern feminists" to bend their principles and walk in lockstep to the liberal mantra and pay homage to the liberal/democrat party while throwing other women "under the bus".

Klein, et al., are are neither bloggers nor journalists. What they want to be are "opinion shapers," and they will use whatever tool is in the box to shape public opinion to their preferred view.

Althouse the person is a threat because her opinion can't be shaped. "Althouse" the blog is a threat because it is like a vaccine - if people really spend time here, they will see that she questions everything, even the "shapers." Readers will be better able to identify and resist the "shapers." Thus, the shapers must try to scare people away from Althouse by insinuating that Althouse and her blog are anti-Semitic and thus beyond the Pale.

The claim is rich that Professor Althouse is a "moderate conservative" (downtownlad) or whatever Alpha Liberal is claiming she is, by challenging her credentials as either a "moderate" or a "liberal."

Apparently, liberals define these terms rather the way the New Yorker magazine used to mock New Yorkers in their mapping of North America: whatever's not us is alien territory. Thus, whoever doesn't march in lockstep with liberal pieties, is "conservative" or, grudgingly, a "moderate conservative."

Conservativism is grounded in several clear concepts and ideas about humanity, family, society and its institutions, government, and so forth. It is not merely reaction, although conservatives can be reactionary (as can liberals!).

Professor Althouse, I know conservatives; conservatives are friends of mine -- and, with all respect and affection, you Madam are no conservative!

She's a knee jerk liberal basher. Look at her where she attacks a young woman for standing in front of Bill Clinton while having breasts.Are you kidding, the Jessica Valenti scandal is the best thing to come out of Althouse. And I say that as basically an anarchist.

The problem really is just that people don't see this blog as a personal blog. I guess because it's so popular?

The premise here is wrong. They don't hate you, they love you. They love you for the same reason gays love you, pardon me if that sounds redundant.

They love you for the grief you present them. They love to hurl insults at you and then go skipping off. It's all fun. It's all good. It's interesting. It's real blogging.

If they hated you then they wouldn't read you, it's as simple as that.

Klein is a good guy. He's got a great head on his shoulders. His own blog is worth reading, albeit more narrowly focused and not quite as interesting or amusing to a reader such as myself. But that marks a preference, not a love or a hate. Let's give him credit for having successfully driven traffic.

"And, you actually made my point. Althouse bashes liberals. And Althouse promotes right wing lies and memes with zero or nil critical thought."

That is 100% crap. Althouse is a free thinker. People like Klein and their ilk are threatened by anyone who bothers to think for themselves, point out hypocrisy, or in anyway step away from the dogma.

Liberalism is intellectually dead. It is threatened by any independent thought or individuality. No one really believes in it anymore in the sense of believing in helping the unfortunate and having a intellectually free and tolerant environment. People like Klein and Greenwald just beleive in power.

"Government - a bad word. We hates it, precious does. We must place our trust in large corporations and we must not allow government to be seen as successful. "

As if Democrats care about anything except hating Republicans. You will let Bill Clinton sell out everything that "feminists" were supposed to believe. Now you will let Obama rob the poor and working class to support wall street. You don't beleive in anything except power.

Huh? How did I mock your--I mean Apha Liberal--gender? The referent for "she" is Ann Althouse. Is she (I mean Ann Althouse) and her (I mean Ann Althouse) ideology not the subject of this thread? Is she (I mean Ann Althouse) not a she (again, I mean Ann Althouse)? If she (Ann Althouse) is not a she (Ann Althouse) then I owe her (Ann Althouse) an apology, but not you--I mean Alpha Liberal.

And I think you, Alpha Liberal, might reasonably have considered that, before you launched your rhetorical nukes.

Alphaliberal - I agree with your analysis on the civil liberties thing.

But my pschoanalysis of Ann on the "war on terror" front was not that she's worried about her own safety, but that she's worried about the safety of her son who lives in New York. I think she's scared of him getting nuked.

I concede that there are self-described conservatives who support torture; but I think if you are familiar with what conservatism is all about--key among which is limited government power--then you will see why it is by no means axiomatic that conservatives support torture.

It is not particularly persuasive to claim George W. Bush as somehow the benchmark of conservatism. Are you unaware that many conservatives didn't like him, didn't trust him, in 1999 and 2000? Are you really not aware of all the ways his policies have never squared with what conservatism advocates?

You don't have to like, or agree with, conservative principles to recognize what they are, and where they come from, and then to lay them side-by-side with the "neo-conservative" movement, that in many ways reached its zenith (or better, nadir) under George W. Bush.

And this becomes most clear in the waning months of the Bush Administration, as he led the way for massive government nationalization of financial institutions, and admitted he was tossing out free market principles.

But if we apply your method, of -- apparently -- defining conservatism as whatever George W. Bush said and did -- then now conservative economics seems awfully close to Keynesianism. Is that not absurd?

Isn't it more reasonable to concede that conservatism is a reasonably clear defined set of values--to which Bush and others claim adherence, and which claims clear-eyed observers can dispute?

Three words: "Althouse digs in." And I think it's mostly liberal bloggers that "hate" Althouse. She's defiant and she won't back down complaisantly. And she is known to call people out, unexpectedly, so some of this is preemptive as well retributive. And she's taken the mantle of helping define the role of the blogger, which is a competitive as well as existential threat to some.

That she might (usually) come(s) down on the "wrong" side of an issue makes her unreliable, a threat, even if she's a liberal, albeit in the more classical sense.

That combined with her artistic sensibility. The left think they own the culture emanating from the right brain. I suppose Paglia would come in for more similar treatment if, like Althouse, she was competing in the day-to-day blog-trench.

Father Martin - You'd have a valid point, except for the fact that all of the people who made the claim that Bush was NOT a conservative in 2004 (such as Andrew Sullivan) have since been kicked out of the conservative movement.

Sorry - but Rush Limbaugh, and bloggers such as Michelle Malkin, La Shawn Barber, the folks at The Corner and the Ace of Spades are the ones who get to decide what conservatism means.

And none of them had any problem with Bush's policies until the Fall of 2008, when it became obvious that McCain would lose.

Speaking to others who don't refuse to talk to people they disagree with: I don't happen to consider anyone "intrinsically evil," since that would be contrary to Catholic teaching.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught no thing is "intrinsically evil"; it's metaphysically impossible. All creation is intrinsically and irremdiably good, because it participates in the goodness of God. Not even the devil is or can be "intrinsically evil." Surprising, perhaps, but that's orthodox Catholic teaching.

Only actions can be "intrinsically evil." And pretty much all sin, of whatever stripe, is "intrinsically evil"--thus that applies to pretty much everyone. But persons are not to be equated with their actions.

OK, so I looked at the Father Martin's profile page and I over-reacted. He looks legit.

I just don't think modern conservatism has much relevance to what Jesus preached. For example, Jesus didn't make persecution of homosexuals a part of his teachings. But that's the face of modern Christianity.

The reason why liberals "hate" Althouse is because they see that she sometimes takes liberal positions, and they love that. But then they see her taking conservative positions (much more frequently), and this is frustrating. They want to love her, because she is so smart when she takes a liberal position, but they can't handle it when she is equally as smart when she takes a conservative position. The "hatred" stems from their deep desire to fully embrace and love her...but they can't due to her conservatism. It's like blue balls.

I think Althouse plays too many games on her blog, frankly. But I still like her.

Even GayPatriot understands that leftists are angry, dull-witted, humorless people who seek to angst-ridden about everything because if they actually tried a hand at happiness, well guess what, then their moronic, bankrupt ideology doesn't stand a chance in the face of that newfound happiness. Leftists and liberals are not happy people, they are made miserable by others of their kind. They get sucked into the facade of global injustices that they never created and never had a hand in, but are meant to feel guilty about because of the sheer luck that they were born in a country that is far more prosperous than any other or come from a much more privileged background that they are ashamed to admit too. The entire ideology is a facade of meaningless diatribes and antipathies of victimhood that is perpetual and in that knowledge of eternal faux indignation, continue to espouse the daily rhetoric of the great joke that is the left and their liberal brethren. Stay miserable for life in your own stew oh followers of the big lie. I hope its warm on the deep end.

Why are celibate gay males banned from the priesthood? Well, I'll give it a brief go...

Right or wrong, the reason has to do with presumptive suitability, not any question of being "intrinsically evil." Women can't be priests--does that prove they are "intrinsically evil"? Kinda rough on the Virgin Mary who is a she (I mean the Virgin Mary, not Alpha Liberal, just to be clear).

One thing I've concluded about AlphaLiberal is that he is the absolute king of knocking down straw men.

He is the champion of all T-ball hitters.

He can forehand smash his own gently served balls, but he is fundamentally dishonest because he pathologically misrepresents or distorts what his declared opponents actually believe.

If the real world were actually as he represents it to be, we’d all be AlphaLiberals.

Still, one has to wonder what drives one to distort other’s opinions and claims so egregiously and so frequently. Is it to make it easier for him to vent his hatred? Would it be too hard for AlphaLiberal to feel so superior and noble if he had to admit that those that he has chosen to oppose might not actually believe ½ the things he claims or have anywhere near as bad of motives?

He creates the world he wants in his mind, and nobly slays the evil of his own creation.

But conservatives are an intolerant bunch - and they can't stand the fact that others might think differently than they do.

Conservatives are constantly in a state of outrage. That's why they are very bitter people. They are outraged that Obama made a joke about the Special Olympics. They are outraged that Obama is cutting the payroll tax instead of the income tax. They are outraged that the government might spend 30 cents a person on the National Endowment for the Arts. Of course, it could also be due to the fact that they only have sex in the missionary position (unless you're a priest and then you don't have sex at all).

That would be very frustrating to live life like that - so no wonder they are outraged and take out their misery on people like AlphaLiberal - who dares to express an opinion and disagree with Rush's thinking.

OK, I don't share DTL's animus towards Catholics. But we all have different experiences in life and I don't know what DTL has experienced.

A question I would have for FAther Martin given his theological devotions:When did Christ preach the homosexuals should be singled out and persecuted?

Note" "Persecuted" included banning their right to marry, withholding full partner visitation and other rights, stripping them of parental rights and legalizing workplace discrimination? These are all part of the religious right (and Republican) agenda.

Note" "Persecuted" included banning their right to marry, withholding full partner visitation and other rights, stripping them of parental rights and legalizing workplace discrimination? These are all part of the religious right (and Republican) agenda.

"What I've noticed, over and over, is that the bloggers on the right link to you when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce you with short posts saying you're evil/stupid/crazy, and don't even seem to notice all the times you've written posts that take their side. Why is this happening? I find it terribly, terribly sad."

"Sissy Willis responds. She thinks there is something inherent in left and right positions that produces this different behavior. I am trying to reach out to the left and say: Behave better! Engage me! But I read her as telling me that's hopeless."

I think that Ann is problematic to those on the left for a number of reasons. First of all, she is off the plantation. She had great liberal credentials, and then started to question some of their core beliefs.

And I think that this is most notable when it comes to feminism. She calls BS on those who call themselves "feminists" and claim to speak for all women.

And, of course, there is the problem that a "liberal" could have voted for George W. Bush and Darth Cheney. Never mind that he was running against "Reporting for Duty" John Kerry (who still hasn't released his military records to the public, despite numerous promises to do so) and Breck Boy John Edwards, whom we found out later was having an affair while his wife dies of cancer. And, never mind that this was 3 years after 9/11. Oh, and never mind that she voted for Barack Obama, his teleprompter, and gaffeomatic Joe Biden this time around.

Keep in mind that there are some 7 or so percent of the voting public who did just as she did, voting for the Republicans in 2004 and the Democrats in 2008, and they are really the centrists and independents these days, regardless of which party they officially belong to.

I attribute most of the hate to the same cause that results in Jews reviling Jews for Jesus or Mormons reviling (modern) polygamists. She is an apostate.

Try to find a quote from any official source representing the catholic church that says gays are intrinsically evil. I don't think you can. I think the good father accurately described the doctrine: all people are intrinsically good, but all people commit evil actions (sins). Gays are no different in this regard from everyone else in church doctrine.

I think there was a vatican encyclical that said that homosexual desire is "intrinsically disordered." Maybe that is what you are thinking of. I'm sure you wouldn't like that either, but it isn't the same. It's "gays are like bulimics" not "gays are like Hitler."

You repeat that charge a lot though. I wonder why it is important to you.

TMink : They hate you because you do not follow marching orders. We have learned that the rest of them do.

I agree with TMink. Liberals always seem to agree with each other. It's as if they have a communal consciousness and each member of the group is always watching to make sure no one strays from the liberal canon.

Althouse is being used as an example to "the others". That's the real reason for the hate.

Whatever their reasons for "hating" her, perhaps they could find someone else since she rarely says anything that's that important. As for those who "hate" her being journalists, please give me two breaks. The vast majority of bloggers are only capable of snark, and as we saw from yesterday's defense of Althouse, most of them can't even edit their own work to make sure they're getting basic facts right.

she draws widespread criticism because 90% of her attention-grabbing, contrarian posts were posted purely for that attention, no matter how astoundingly absurd a premise she was forced to construct for that purpose.

e.g., the valenti controversy, the clinton pajamas commercial, the clinton sopranos commercial, the jindal speech, the begoggled padilla, and the post on that poor sap who was shot to death in the london underground (which first brought me here).

underlying the elevation of repeated bemused/bewildered/horrified criticism to "hatred" is an ill-conceived narcissism that befits more of the same.

As stated above, criticism does not equal hatred, particularly when the criticism is in response to someone else's provocation (which has happened in more than a few of these online dustups). Althouse may have many favorable attributes, but an ability to take it as well as she can dish it out isn't one of them.

And what exactly is a "pure blogger" anyway? Blogging doesn't have a generally agreed-upon dogma that one can reasonably say constitutes orthodoxy that one mustn't deviate from.

I prefer Althouse's policy to not delete based on content, but I do wish she'd weigh in once in awhile. The Valenti thing is a good example; the comments thread in that vortex turned so foul, it was a like a dog pack rutting in the street. So her protests that she was making a valid critique of feminists turning a blind eye to Clinton, which I agree with, rings hollow when anyone bothers to go to the archive and read through the incredibly base, pornographic sewer her mostly male, mostly conservative commenters shat out. It's a tricky path to walk, and she doesn't always do it well. Sometimes, too, she very purposefully creates a dustup because she enjoys the results and gets lots of attention for it. Voila, the vortex. That gets old. When it happens, I tend to just leave and come back in a few days, when there are once again many things to enjoy, both in the comments and in Althouse's blogging.

All that being said, Klein was manipulative in saying "lots of Althouse commenters are anti-semitic." Shame on him.

"Chris said... I'm fairly liberal and I like Ann Althouse. It's the anti-semitic commenters that get my goat."

Here's a new Anti-Semite for you to rail against - who argues in a WSJ Op-Ed that "Our Special Friend" and dealing with it's neighbors on it's behalf can no longer be the main focus of US diplomacy and foreign policy.

Leslie H. Gelb, noted anti-Semite, argues that our focus on Israel has gravely hurt US standing with far more important countries and our military and ecobomic power.

As for the crises that pockmark the landscape from Israel through the Gulf to South Asia, they obviously can't be ignored. These are the breeding grounds for international terrorism and political extremism. At the same time, Washington needs to use its power in these crises more creatively and less intensely. They can't remain the center of our attention and consume the bulk of our resources.

In other words, Gelb says Israel and other motley ME countries have to drop down to 2nd-tier nation consideration, and we must focus instead on realism and our relations with far more economically important and geopolitically strategic nations.

Pardon me - but it was the conservatives who were having a conniption when Obama made a funny joke about the Special Olympics.

I wasn't because he's a simpleton who is a callous dick. Sort of like you, with the exception that you want kill DS babies in utero. I have a very good friend who has a brother that has DS. I have a cousin that has DS. You can make and support all the jokes you want about people with DS. Doesn't make a difference to me, but understand that I you are clearly masking your notion of humor by being supporting a callous, humorless dick. Oh, he may laugh just like you, but underneath is the contempt, the disdain, the derision that makes up your empty black souls. You and people who think like you are utterly devoid of not only sympathy, but empathy. Not because you think it's politically expedient, but because it makes you think you are superior to others you fell are beneath you. That's the type of person you portray yourself to be, but in reality you are a small minded child with small minded thoughts.

The Catholic Church has said that I am intrinsically evil, as are all gay people. That is the basis of my animus towards the Catholic Church.

Considering your genocidal raving about people with DS, then I'd say yes you are intrinsically evil. You may not consider yourself to be so, but your thoughts betray you true nature. Which outside of your prurient lifestyle, that you choose to flaunt at every turn, speaks volumes for the hateful wretch you really are. If you dropped dead today, the world would have been just made a better place by it.

Your hatred of the church is simply indicative of the typical unfocused hatred of what you think stands in the way of the lifestyle you have chosen. The church to that effect is a splinter under your skin, a thorn in your finger. You know that if you can bring down the church that then there is no opposition voice to what you do as a means of trying to normalize it. You attack the church like a spoiled child knowing that if it succumbs to your base impulses that you somehow have won a battle that will somehow remove the barriers to that which has repressed you. However you don't even understand that you've simply built up your own walls. You are your own worst enemy and your hatred and misery is proof of that. Blaming others for what you think is sin, when in reality you shouldn't even care to begin with. Why do you care about an institution that has done more good in the world than you could even fathom in your miserable lifetime? You seek to try and bring down goodness because your a vicious, vindictive, and I will say an intrinsically evil person.

You are a stain on the homosexual community. If may homosexuals friends knew who you were they would shun you with a distinction that would render you a weeping husk of humanity. You couldn't shine their fucking shoes you disgusting pile of offal.

I think the comments are just awful here in general, but I like the blog itself. I don't think that anything should be done about the comments. It's just that I think people should try to be less awful. But being awful is so fun. If I could figure out how to be anonymous, I myself would join in and be even more awful.

I think liberals aren't liberals, they're one-party state communists. I think they're terrified that they don't completely own academia, and are terrified that Ann's prestige as a law professor countenances an alternative viewpoint. They want mandatory uniformity, with death for dissenters.

They want this country to become more like Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and N. Korea, and Ann is holding all that up, almost single-handedly.

I feel so unworthy to have been--briefly--a focus of a thread on this blog!

Alpha Liberal:

Thanks for your apology. I don't agree with your assessment of conservatism, but it's been a long day, the thread is deteriorating, so let's leave that for another day?

Downtownlad:

I think my explanation -- which was offered as brief, meaning you knew I wasn't going to get into all of it, so give me a break! -- admits of other, less invidious explanations than the one you chose. Ergo, while you are free to believe what you choose, I think, as a matter of reason and fairness, you are not entitled to say that the meaning you applied is in fact the meaning. You asked a question I wasn't obliged to answer, but I did in good humor. I'd be very sorry to conclude you were playing "bait the priest."

Look, I made a post where I disagreed with you, but I think you would agree I never picked a fight with you, so let's be peaceful, okay?

Do people really hate Althouse? What's to hate? She's seems about as moderate as can be. She gets a tad controversial (and it mostly seems to run against the liberal POV)only about every fourth, fifth or sixth post. Seriously, I'm pretty liberal and I don't see anything really offensive here. Now some of the comments...

It's because she's not Red State or Michelle Malkin or some other right wing blog that wouldn't even appear on liberals' radar screen, except as something to caricature from afar. Michelle Malkin could make the most eloquent case for her beliefs in the history of political philosophy, but she would convince exactly zero liberals, because liberals refuse to read her. (I don't read Malkin either, but my problem is with her predictability and her orthodoxy.)

Ann, on the other hand, sometimes agrees with liberals or at least gives liberal spin a fair hearing. So liberals get drawn into this blog, thinking it's a safe place where their views won't be challenged. Then: Wham! She links to a conservative opinion column, or articulates a conservative idea, or critiques a liberal shibboleth.

Dumb liberals see this and get very confused. Penetrating the cocoon of their beliefs is incredibly uncomfortable for them. Smart liberals see this and get worried, fearing someone might read it and be tempted to stray. This is why they campaign so loudly to stigmatize Fox News and now CNBC. They don't want their minions to even hear criticisms of the current administration. It's like James Hoffa's complaint about the secret ballot in union certification elections. "Too divisive."

Liberals always want you to "consider the source." Their top rhetorical strategy is ad hominem argument. "Why would you believe that person? She's a xxxxxx-aphobe, supported Bush's xxxxxx, and is on the board of a foundation that accepted money from xxxxxxxx." Ann's a little harder to caricature as an Enemy of the People. That's why they hate her.

Liberals hate Althouse because garage mahal still hasn't gotten a tag. I'm here in the good times and the bad, unlike the fence sitting elites who cry and take their ball home because the comment section here isn't quite up to their lofty standards. Until I get a tag the universe cannot be righted and there will be no peace.

The reason why libs hate Althouse is because she's a free-thinker and refuses to go along with any wingnuts, period. The unthinking wingnuts(AlphaTroll, MichaelTroll, bethTroll, DTLTroll, garageTroll, etc...) can't take it.

"What they don't get is that I am a pure blogger, really a blogger, showing you what blogging is. I don't think they really are bloggers. I don't think they really are journalists either. I'm called deranged or whatever when I'm riffing in a bloggerly style that they obviously don't understand or appreciate."

I'd state it a little differently. All of you bloggers. The styles are different. As you say, they just can't deal with yours.

"They are ... mucking up their journalism and simultaneously writing dull blogs."

I love Beth. She's very insightful, even though I think she is mostly wrong. Alpha is stupid. Garage is fine. Downtown Lad's universe revolves entirely around his gayness, which is absurd. But none of those people are trolls. Let's not call people trolls because we disagree with them. Let's call people trolls because they are trolls.

I think John Stodder @7:11 nails it. The last paragraph really resonates with my experience. And I say that as someone in academia in an ultra-liberal city who is still 95% in the closet politically. (All my dearest friends & acquaintances are pretty much (and self-admittedly) neo-Marxists or post-Marxists, of some sort or other.) I admire Ann (like Ron Silver) for her cojones, & wish/hope I could be that brave & unapologetic expressing my political views-- in my real life & in my real name, not just pseudonymously on the web. Maybe someday, years from now, after (if) I get tenure... In the meantime, Ann's ideological independence, especially as an academic, is something I really look up to.

I second everyone who pointed out that Ann Althouse is her own person, quirky, iconoclastic, and largely independent. I am not sure that EITHER liberal or conservative would be a good label, though I find it noteworthy that it is the more liberal commenters who are so eager to put a label on her and the conservative and libertarian commenters who are saying something along the lines of: “She’s just Althouse; she’s hard to label.”

It is important that we defend Professor Althouse and do our best to counterattack Ezra Klein. Klein is a “momzer” (Yiddish word for bastard), but I have to admit that he is a smart one. It’s actually a good strategy for he and his crowd (a sizable number of whom—ironically—are Israel haters) to attack Althouse. By attacking a woman who was married to a Jew, whose sons would be considered Jewish under Nuremberg laws, who kept her maiden name, who is pro-choice, and who endorsed and voted for Obama in 2008, Klein is able to push the boundaries of what is liberal and what is conservative. If Klein and his coterie are able to smear Althouse as a right-winger hater, then garden variety conservative Christians are even more vulnerable to that smear.

There are at least two notable ironies worth remarking on. First, as many have noted, Ezra Klein is a non-observant Jew with questionable attitudes towards Israel. Second, several commenters on Althouse’s blog cursed Ezra Klein in Yiddish. But then, I am beginning to suspect irony is lost on people like Ezra Klein; it usually is lost on hypocrites.

The ultimate goal is not to silence Ann Althouse (who does not give up easily), but to silence great swaths of conservatives.

Chips Ahoy, Ezra Klein is NOT a “good guy.” As I noted before (in another comment, and above), he is a momzer and a paskudnyak.

Jason the Commenter, Kirby Olson, and John Stodder, good on yer all. Yashu, hang in there. As someone who has abandoned academia, I admire you for even being there—closet or not.

I agree with Seven Machos, Beth is not a troll. Regarding Alpha, Garage, and Michael, I am reserving judgment. As for DTL, he is not intrinsically evil; he is just a poor lost soul, with reasoning skills that need work.

The free speaker is a threat to any system of speech regulation. That "liberal" 30 years ago usually meant some one who accepted the idea of a value in free speech is gone with the wind.Today there is a war underway against free speech, free elections without rigged counts, and free ownership of firearms. These warriors who now call themselves "Progressives" have little patience with former liberal friends who do not share their new goals but they do not attack them. It is because Althouse teaches that there is this vital distinction between liberals and Progressives disguising themselves as as liberals, with insightful post after insightful post, that She must be silenced. While liberalism is not an enemy of the Progressive War Machine...Ann Althouse is their enemy because of her dangerous teaching skills she uses in her internet wide class room. That her pupils include a few jerks is not a real issue, rather that she spotlights things the Progressives don't want exposed is the dynamic at work.

She has the credentials. As a bona fide successful "smart person" established as such by liberals' own standards, she sometimes critiques the left and/or doesn't heap scorn on the right every. single. time. She is therefore harder to dismiss, a pothole in the smooth road of unchallenged conviction.

Additionally, some of the more unruly have no practice and no desire to examine their own initial bullshit reactions.

Just curious, but where in that statement is a legitimate starting point for a reasoned debate? It seems that there may not be one, at least that I can see. Instead, it is rhetoric, inflammatory rhetoric at that.

I'm sorry I was out of town and missed a great weekend of blogging. The comment section over at Ezra Klein's was laugh out loud funny. I love it when people confuse ol' fenrisulven with Prof. Althouse. And then to have that thread spin past Valentiville? Precious.

Frodo Potter Ezra Klein is not just a momzer, if that is all he was it would not matter much. No he is the worst of the worst, the one who be a Kapo in the KZ. He is a Soros without the money and influence.

She favors gay marriage, but she's also fine and dandy with it being outlawed for the next 978 years.

Which I interpret as being a "moderate" on social issues.

Then your interpretive organs are atrophied. If they were functioning correctly you would see this as a belief in the rule of law. "Law" has nothing to with unelected bureaucrats imposing their policy preferences on everyone else at gunpoint, contrary to what so-called-liberals seem to believe.

I stopped my Althouse feed when she started deluding herself that Obama was anything other than an Empty Suit standing up for the Chicago Way. Unfortunately, I couldn't stop the Wife feed. I still love you both, and will try to keep the "I told you so"s to a minimum.

DTL, that is NOT from the Catholic Church. That is from a fellow who has absolutely no official position with the Church, and has set himself up as an expert theologian. He even posts this caveat:

"Please note that most of my theology writings are speculative, rather than dogmatic."

I remember several years ago when you first came out, and considered yourself a conservative/libertarian. You even had your own blog after posting for awhile on Gay Patriot and Boi from Troy. I'm sorry to see that you've become so bitter and unhappy. I've been there myself, and it's very painful. My wish for you is that you can become again that hopeful young man that I first read years ago.

Downtown lad said, "More proof that Ann is a conservative - She links to GayPatriot all the time, a self-loathing stooge for the right, yet she's never linked to another gay blog with the exception of Andrew Sullivan."

Remember kids, if you are gay, it doesn't matter if you think Capitalism is better than socialism, if radical muslims who want to kill all gays bother you more than radical christians who don't want gays to get married, if you think global warming is pretty much a scam, if you think gays + gun rights = less gay bashing, if you would rather not be more like Europe thank you very much.

Nope none of that matters because if you're gay the Democrats own your soul. And Democrats who tell you what you want to hear and then don't do anything about it is so much better than following your own conscience and voting Republican!

And remember, if you're gay, you are defined by what you enjoy doing with your naughty bits, not by your own ideas and ideals. If you think otherwise, you are SELF LOATHING!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread where radical leftists try not to sound like psychopaths while explaining that Ms. Althouse is a lying traitor scum dog.

Oh, this is easy. You once blogged about liberal a woman who loved Bill Clinton who showed her boobies through a tight revealing t-shirt, which evolved into a two year long blarguement! That blarguement, BTW, was one of the reasons I ended up loving your blog. Plus, I love blogs by lawyers. They're smarter and better written than the average.

It's because you're a narcissistic ninny! (Which is incidentally one of the strongest accusations you never hesitate to levy at others.) You want to be taken seriously and yet you neglect to realize that the first rule of being taken seriously in the blogosphere is to not have such thin skin, to admit error (or at least the potential for it), and to focus on clarifying rather than exacerbating political disputes.

A lawyer who can actually blog in a serious way will be taken seriously (See Volokh for details). A lawyer who loves repackaging the sort of courtroom shenanigans and political drama that go over well with an audience addicted to the culture typified by Jerry Springer, isn't.

Yep. You're about as worthy of adulation as Eminem is. Not that there aren't people who don't adore Eminem. They just aren't taken seriously. And neither are you - or your audience. You should admit that you prefer it that way and maybe then you'll get the wider "respect" that you claim to be so interested in earning.

And given that the only blog you affiliate with is represented by a mission, don't you think it's wise to consider that holding oneself up as infallible might be a reason for not being taken seriously?

As for your own hypocrisy (using silly names toward me in pathetic defense of the same horrible reputation that Althouse wishes she didn't have - and BTW, her post acknowledges her poor reputation among significant portions of the blogosphere. Are you disagreeing with what Althouse already acknowledges or just trying to prevent anyone from offering a cogent explanation for it?), what does that say about you, given your link?

I know. These are probably really challenging questions for you. The kind that are de rigeur in the big, rude, scary blogosphere.

Will you read me when I say that I did not even know that The Professor was getting married (again) until now!? I mean, I never check in here, but I know that life events define you guys moreso than actual accomplishments. So congratulations and all that. And I don't begrudge even an insufferable egomaniac's right to hawk in on some admirer from her precious little well of on-line admirers. But you're going to have to become a lot more eloquent if you want to compete with Meade, Machos.